Awakening – Part II

Using scientology parlance, we begin by attempting to help people move above ‘know about’ on the ‘know to mystery scale.’ I have found plenty outside of scientology that explains and validates the sequence of Hubbard’s scale; illuminating the reason for the relatively high position for ‘not know.’ Thus, the Tao Te Ching – a book Hubbard once credited as offering in application all that scientology could hope to attain through its psychotherapeutic methodologies and training – teaches:

The Master leads; by emptying people’s minds

and filling their cores, by weakening their ambition

and toughening their resolve.

He helps people lose everything they know,

everything they desire, and creates confusion

in those who think that they know…

…The ancient Masters

didn’t try to educate the people,

but kindly taught them to not-know.

When they think that they know the answers,

people are difficult to guide.

When they know that they don’t know,

people can find their own way…

…Not-knowing is true knowledge.

Presuming to know is a disease.

First realize that you are sick;

then you can move toward health…

Notwithstanding their seeming alignment with such concepts as the know-to-mystery scale, scientologists are taught to eschew such ideas in pursuing and exuding certainty. And yet it was application of them that led to their own indoctrination or ‘enlightenment’ in and with scientology. Scientologists are plied with a continual diet of tearing down all schools of thought that preceded scientology – even those that led to its creation. These facts necessitate that our first several chapters focus on pointing out the inconsistency, illogic, and even absurdity of some of your core scientology conditionings. Perhaps I haven’t done it as ‘kindly’ as the Tao would prescribe. Nonetheless, I want to make clear the purpose for doing so. I am not doing it in order to replace your faulty stable data in order to become a new director of your destiny, but instead I hope to assist toward ‘when they know that they don’t know, people can find their own way.’ In that regard, the second reading recommendation that I make (the first being The Tao Te Ching – An English Translation by Stephen Mitchell) is a classic novel called Siddhartha by Herman Hesse.

Siddhartha is the quintessential lesson on the virtue – even necessity – of blazing one’s own path. Even if you read it many years ago, I suggest that if you are seriously exploring the idea of moving beyond and above scientology that you read it again. Evaluate your scientology experience against Siddhartha’s experience. Siddhartha sublimely demonstrates that the very act of becoming a follower or belonging is anathema to enlightenment. If in being introduced to new ideas and horizons one in particular seems to be the golden goose that will continue to forever lay you golden eggs, hark back to Siddhartha. Clinging to one-stop enlightenment sources can defeat the entire purpose of the quest. Siddhartha also reminds us that when in doubt or despair it is rejuvenating to turn to and fully enjoy the wonderment of the simple present; the Zen transcendence of doing what one is doing while doing it.

A system of thought purporting to be the ‘science of certainty’, that overtly asserts the goal and product of boiling all of creation down to simplistic blacks and whites, can be seen in the light of the wisdom from the Tao (and even scientology’s know-to-mystery scale) to potentially be the conveyor of a sort of sickness. The resultant awareness myopia – the death of life-promoting curiosity – is held firmly in place by ego and pride. It requires an adopted air of superiority to automatically dismiss any ideas or information beyond one’s own ism or ology. The certainty that one need not continue to look and to search and to find is protected and bolstered by pride in having arrived, having achieved all there is to know.

The disability (or as the Tao puts it, sickness) concomitant with such pride is described in Power vs. Force:

In our discussion of the levels of consciousness, we noted that one of the downsides of Pride is denial. Every mind engages in denial in order to protect its “correctness”– this begets the fixity and resistance to change that prevents the average consciousness from advancing much more than five points in a lifetime. Great leaps in levels of consciousness are always preceded by surrender of the illusion that ‘I know.’ Frequently, the only way one can reach this willingness to change is when one ‘hits bottom’, that is, by running out a course of action to its end in the defeat of a futile belief system. Light can’t enter a closed box; the upside of catastrophe can be an opening to a higher level of awareness. If life is viewed as a teacher, then it becomes just that. But unless we become humble and transform them into gateways of growth and development, the painful life lessons we deal ourselves are wasted.

Wow! I liked this article. I have always had a craving for knowledge. Always hoping that once I have collected enough knowledge I might reach a point of wisdom. Maybe the way to wisdom is not necessarily through knowledge. Very interesting.

All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.

Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.

There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.

I believe that refraction is caused by the speed of light changing slightly when it moves between mediums, like from air to water. This is why a pencil appears bent when you place it in a glass of water. Or why a prism or lens does what it does with light. I believe that Einstein thought the speed of light was a constant *in a vacuum*. Or maybe I’m just expounding as a certainty something in order to avoid looking into it deeper.

Yes, the ‘c’ in E=mc(2) was the speed of light in a vacuum. Light moves slower the denser the mass it moves through, so lenses can refract light by slowing it down. Lower frequencies are slowed more than higher frequencies, so a prism can separate the different colours (frequencies) in white light. Before Einstein, physicists had reasoned that since light travelled fastest in a vacuum, and they did not know of anything faster than light, c was a universal limiting constant. Einstein built on this assumption.

Hello David.
Good to talk to you. I wrote an article on the purpose of light speed and it’s origin if you would like to see it.marknr@hushmail.com
Just drop me a note. Also, Vinairs blog has much discussion on physics and it’s underlying principals. http://vinaire.me/khtk-mindfulness/
Mark

The speed c as a constant in a vacuum is well-validated experimentally, but one fly in the ointment is that scientists now know there is not really a “vacuum” anywhere. Supposedly empty space is seething with energy and particles popping in and out of existence.

Anyway, c is not so much a claim of an absolute as much as an observable fact of physics, along the lines of the force of gravity being inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects — that’s essentially a three-dimensional fact.

As to c being an absolute speed limit, it appears that is not the case. Neutrinos may go faster in some cases. And there is a category of particles called superluminals that appear to always have to go faster than the speed of light (and perhaps they go backwards in time relative to our time flow).

But it is an interesting question: was c always what it is now? Young Earth Creationists claim (in c-decay theory, which is pseudoscientific) that c was faster in the past than it is now — that lets them believe the Earth is 6,000-ish years old. But some scientists have also considered the possibility that c may vary in some sort of proportion to the expansion of the universe, though I don’t think that has a very broad backing in scientific literature at this point.

Here’s something for believers in Scientology to consider. Hubbard claimed that c was not a limit, and that faster than light travel was a proven technology. If you take the time spaceship (DCs without the props) took to get from Marcab to Teegeeack to dumb off thetans, it would have had to have been faster than light travel — and no wormholes were mentioned. OK. Since Hubbard was an expert in, well, everything, we could he not have sketched out from memory the systems, technology, materials science, and other details for faster-than-light travel? In one fell stroke, Scientology would have been forever validated — and would never have any money problems. But Hubbard did not share anything concrete like that. Why? Hmm.

FOTF
I have posted several articles on advanced tech on this site. Continuous fusion, advanced metallurgy. I was chatting with some engineers at NASA Redstone who were doing research on Plasma Spray as an alternative to casting and machining complex metal parts. I mentioned applying combinations of frequencies to the plasma torch as the metal powders were sprayed through it. I also suggested doping the helium used to spray the metal powders, with additional gases which would act as a catalyst to help lock the alloys together. This was used to improve the cooling channels on the shuttle engine cones. I mentioned they should take a course in music structure.
Mark

FOFT
“Do you feel that you retrieved some of the ideas from whole track recall?”
Mark
I worked as a maintenance technician at nuclear fusion reactors more than once. The injector tips and ignitors had to be changed on a regular basis due to heat and radiation. Had to climb into the reaction-heat exchange chamber. Radiation wasn’t too bad when it is shut down and washed, but we had to wear cumbersome suits. It was very irritating work, coupled with the low level radiation and the ass hole bosses, and the ‘hurry up so we can get back online’, and ‘align everything perfectly or you are in trouble’ was a series of incidents that I ran out.

I also worked in some factories, seems maintenance was a common theme in my recent adventures. Or maybe i like mechanical work and those incidents come up often. Lost a few body parts (and a few bodies) but a lot of it was very interesting, and I was usually appreciated. I usually had a “Git er done” attitude.
Mark

FOTF2012. Hi again.
Now I am curious. Were you curious about the nuts and bolts of advanced technology that could be recalled from whole track experiences, or were you curious about persons believed whole track recall and the possibility that it is elaborate subconscious imagination. No inval intended, a valid area of investigation.
Mark

Much enjoyment comes from understanding a new idea or expanding on an existing one. That’s why I think people enjoy Scientology training. But similar feelings can be experienced through formal or informal study or education, a lecture, reading a book or even during a conversation with someone. Just look at the popularity of TED talks (TED is a nonprofit devoted to spreading ideas, usually in the form of short, powerful talks (18 minutes or less).) People like being curious, like being exposed to new ideas. However, Scientology demands that ones curiosity be limited to the only those of L.Ron Hubbard or, those that do continue to expose themselves to a variety of ideas, demand they measure every idea against Scientology ideas to determine truth. The process or activity becomes arduous and people just give up and close themselves off.

Yes, RK and then, if there is just a smidgen of them left, they look and they see. They see what you and us are putting there. Thx for talking. Thank you for being here and TED is my daily studys. Have a nice day 🙂

Thanks Marty. You quoted:
“and fully enjoy the wonderment of the simple present; the Zen transcendence of doing what one is doing while doing it.”
I do. I try and if I feel I’m failing I take out a book and read a few lines. If that fails well I turn Bob Dylan on really loud. Brings me home.
THIS is what I left drugs to ‘Find where people were happy’. I stepped into scientology 24hrs later. Interesting we can ‘transport’ ourselves that fast!
It’s been in interesting journey with interesting people (love you all!). Thank you for the avenue. Thanks 🙂

This great post made me think of something I noticed a few years ago. When the Dalai Lama is speaking and people ask questions, very frequently his answer is “I don’t know.”

For instance, at a major week-long teaching he did a number of years ago (John Cleese was in the audience), a woman journalist stood up and said something like “There are many stories about people who meet you who feel their health problems have improved or that they have had a vision of truth [that kind of thing.] How do you explain these things?” His immediate answer was “I don’t know.” When you contrast this with cult leaders and religions that imagine they have all the answers, from whom you would undoubtedly get an answer that tried to support their own powers, it certainly was refreshing — not to mention being, IMHO, the correct answer.

Good post Marty – thank you! I realized not too long ago that I have come full circle to where I started before Scientology. I thought I would “know” (spiritually speaking) after doing Scientology because that is what I was $old. The only thing I really learned from everything I did and observed in Scientology is the ability to confront EVIL. I had no clue that it existed before Scientology – it was not real to me. Now I know.

Spiritually speaking, I am back to “not know” and am trying to shed the last remnants of the Scientological filter so I can get back to believing in what worked for me before my mind was hijacked and my soul raped by this fraudulent scam called Scientology!

I like that you are evolving and sharing your thoughts and opinions with others. This has been a painful journey for me and many others but people like you who share what works helps! Your honesty and authenticity is very helpful as well.

And to Cece and Idle Morgue — the confront of evil — yes — this is extremely hard and for someone like me who tends to ALWAYS default first to my own shortcomings/inadequacies/low self-esteem/ I think no one is evil just me … my journey has gone from :

no one is really evil to a short term dive into highly structured religion (Catholic) … which like all Judeo-Christian religions (but even more so) that man is born evil (original sin)

Full circle to:

The hardest to confront there is: is our own true nature as human beings
and definitely part of buddhist thought —-

we are ALL basically good and just require some “refinements”.

Everyone CAN become enlightened — the question, is as Marty has pointed out so well

Not everyone really wants to and many, if not most, would rather coast along in their lives feeling AS IF they have it all together and everyone else is wrong.

So — to me — the highest confront there is to:

Acknowledge that we are all TRYING to be happy …

WAY WAY WAY WAY easier said than done

And all paths — organized or not, religious or not, materialistic or not are “selling” this goal.

And yes — even dm is TRYING to be happy.

(HH Dalai Lama has said — the purpose of life is to be happy” — hard to do)

And most people fail at this because they think happiness is over there, or more possessions, or more knowledge or or or or

Believe me — I’m still working on it. And it changes. A work in progress.

Though himself personally flawed like many gurus are, OSHO (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) owned and had read about 70,000 books on spirituality and religion in his lifetime. Occasionally, I’ve run across quotes of his on the Internet that I especially like.

My perspective on flawed gurus (those with “feet of clay”) is to take the wisdom if it works or relates or helps me . . . and then “kill the Buddha,” as they say. I like this particular quote (edited down from a longer talk).

———————————————————————-
Question:
Jesus says, “Come follow me.” You’re against this statement. What would you like to say about it?

OSHO:
Jesus says, ”Come follow me.” It is not only Jesus who says it: Krishna says it too, Buddha says it too. All the old religions of the world are based on that statement. But that statement is a psychological exploitation of man. I cannot say, ”Come follow me.”

First, those who have said it have crippled humanity, have made humanity helpless. They certainly fulfilled a certain need. People don’t want to be on their own. They don’t have the guts to create their own path, to walk and create it. They want to be led. But they don’t know that if you are being led, slowly slowly, even if you have eyes, you will lose them. You will be seeing through the eyes of Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed. Your eyes will not be needed; in fact your eyes will cause a disturbance.

The leader wants you to surrender your eyes and see through his eyes; surrender your legs and walk with his legs; to not believe in yourself but believe in him. To me it is a crime; it is crippling you, paralyzing you, destroying you. And you can see it all over the world. The whole of humanity is destroyed by such statements and such people.
———————————————————————-

When a master has the goal of making the student a master: that student is safe.
So I agree Windhorse. Some of the masters are wonderful. I love learning from those who have past by these walls before me: friends

Forever Lurker — glad you included the caveat about OSHO/rajneesh – as he was run out of town (Oregon) back in the mid 80’s – and destroyed quite a few lives in the process including some mysterious deaths.

Be that as it may he’s definitely quite a wise spiritual advisor and fortunately has come forward as OSHO now — because he speaks with a great deal of wisdom.

HOWEVER — I’m not sure that seeing through the eyes of the various past “avatars/masters” (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed) is such a bad thing … it’s seeing through the EYES of those who built a concrete religion around them … therein lies the rub.

Having someone to hold UP as a source of inspiration isn’t such a bad thing. Artists do it all the time. Desire at first to be LIKE Van Cliburn, or Van Morrison or Van Gogh (I’m on a Van roll here 🙂 —

And then the student surpasses the master …

We can use Marty AS AN INSPIRATION to move up — but I’m sure he’s be the first one to say — wait — don’t make ME your guru …

Unless we are OUTRAGEOUSLY intelligent, following isn’t so bad UP TO A POINT … then it’s important to make you own way. Usually happens some time around 50 years old … but not always.

WH
I agree with you that looking at a master’s or just SOMEBODY else’s viewpoint is helpful and often enriching.
Maybe there is that little step of ‘making it one’s own’ as described in
TR 1 that can get missed or gets dropped out and then one becomes a
‘follower’ only.
Greta

Thanks Marty, I followed your advice and re-read the book Siddhartha in its original language (my German is a lot better than my English 🙂 This time I couldn’t quite read it as a novel anymore. Self fulfillment is only realized through ones own experiences, be it good or bad, The path to a higher level of consciousness is only attainted through personal experience. No guru can get you on your own unique path. No guru should be extrapolating wisdom’s of life for you. Don’t follow any guru. Ok, I’m there. I can see how this would work. But I find my mind damaged, infested with guru’s of the past. Most prominently LRH. How to get rid of him is something I don’t know, in all honesty, I don’t know how to get him out of my system. I’m like Govinda who followed the Buddha, and I feel I’m quite deep in it. At the same time I’m ready to do some serious deconstruction. I began reading the Upanishads, as my father was a Hindu priest and I was raised a Hindu. I want to re-familiarize myself with these ancient wisdoms I have been disconnect from for a long time. By the way, my dad never once protested of my involvement with scientology. He just said; paraphrasing: “follow your path and fulfill your obligations on that path….” Still figuring out what he was trying to say (cant ask him since he passed away a decade a go).

I need to let my thoughts settle a little. What do you recommend reading first of your graduating from scientology series? Is anything available I can read like tomorrow?

About Siddhartha (which I agree is an amazing and transformational book), we do need to remember one thing: it was a non-Buddhist German’s take on the work of the Buddha. And Hesse himself spent a chunk of his life being an extremely fervent follower of his special “holder of the truth,” Gurdjieff. The degree to which one should question one’s teacher is an issue in his writings, and it is clear that he was never certain himself. Gurjieff’s sudden defection from his followers was a trauma that Hesse never completely worked through. The problems he juggled, which are form a basis of Siddhartha, are best stated in the works (and I know, the oral tradition is not dependable) of the Buddha and of practicing Buddhists in the classical tradition. One great source is “Verses on the Faith Mind” by Hsing Hsing Ming, the 3rd Zen Patriarch.
“Infinitely large and infinitely small;
no difference, for definitions have vanished
and no boundaries are seen.
So too with Being and non-Being.
Don’t waste time in doubts and arguments
that have nothing to do with this…

….Do not search for the truth.
Only cease to cherish opinions.”

One of the wonderful things about Buddhism is that in the long run it doesn’t pretend to be the Truth or The Way…just A Way. Maybe even just A POSSIBLE Way. As the Dalai Lama frequently says, it is not really necessary to have a faith, or to struggle to find the truth. The thing that is necessary is to have compassion.
In the end what may define a life well-led is not who the teacher was, but what your own experience has led you to do in the creation of compassion and non-harming.
Of course, Buddhists can be just as contentious as any other “followers” who believe that “Truth” is the whole cookie. This is why some practicing Buddhists refuse to call themselves Buddhists. In the 90s I used to visit alt.buddhism. It was awful, the most ANTI-Buddhist wallow of besserwissers I’ve ever seen. These know-it-alls argued endlessly about how much smarter and more deeply informed they were, and bashed each others ferociously, and quoted ever-more abstruse examples to demonstrate how much better they understood everything. As Hsing Hsing Ming might have said, it was a total waste of time. (On the other hand, their ghastly negative example may have turned many of us in a better direction.) Why spend your life trying to get the final grip on “Truth” (which we can never know), when you could be working to cultivate compassion and the desire to alleviate suffering?
Marty, I have no knowledge of the truth, but from my extremely limited point of view the sort of work you are now doing has all the earmarks of cultivating good karma. Thanks, and thanks particularly for the goodness of heart with which your work is being done.

I was trying to contextualize what Hesse wrote and why he impregnated this book with an anti-guru sentiment so prominently. Your information helps me a lot to understand Hesse himself better. On my quest I couldn’t disqualify a guru completely; one has to have someone pointing a way where to look. Or point to a possible path to walk on. Ultimately the persons choses to look or not to look. To walk the walk or not. The work of the guru ends when he had pointed out possible directions. In this respect, a guru is very valuable.

“One of the wonderful things about Buddhism is that in the long run it doesn’t pretend to be the Truth or The Way…just A Way. Maybe even just A POSSIBLE Way. As the Dalai Lama frequently says, it is not really necessary to have a faith, or to struggle to find the truth. The thing that is necessary is to have compassion.
In the end what may define a life well-led is not who the teacher was, but what your own experience has led you to do in the creation of compassion and non-harming.” —— powerful, insightful, useful.

Oh, thanks so much! I would never discount the importance of a good teacher. On some level “practice” (as Buddhists call what they do) is actually a skill. Just like any other skill — playing the violin, for instance — it is a lot better to learn how to do in a way that has been perfected over a long time, rather than just grabbing the bow and trying to invent your own technique. Most of us (well, I, anyway) are not up to producing much with that.
I think Marty is doing something along these lines right now: taking the best from existing Dharma (which means good teachings and doesn’t in any way have to be Buddhist) and, applying his considerable experience, trying to generate a compassionate practice for himself and possibly for others, especially those who have been in Scientology and haven’t understood that these things REQUIRE participation, not just blind obedience. I’m so impressed by what he is working out and expressing, and his dharma is making its way into my life as I hope all good teachings will.

You are incorrect on this score: trying to generate a compassionate practice for himself Quite to the contrary. I share what I know that I believe can help others as part of my path further away from the entire subject.

You’re welcome! I truly valued your input and took by heart data I recognized useful.

I try to (re) open up my mind by shedding off the teachings of Hubbard, Not because some of the data LRH has put forth is meritless, a lot of it actually does have validity (plagiarized of mot). But because most of it is infused with abundant superiority and arrogance. What I get from Marty and my recent quest (reading Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita) is that true wisdom can not be assimilated to ones essence in the presence of arrogance and superiority. In my college days I enjoyed reading many authors. Philosophers, scholars in many disciplines, psychologists, writers (literature) etc. Every work a read, I started a new, without trying to explain one subject/author with any other. I did not have an automatic yardstick to measure everything against. I’m striving to reach that point again. I want to leave you with a quote that describes best where I am at in trying to zero-out Scientology instilled arrogance.

My painful history is not wasted. I just wanted to help others.
Today a gall sat at my table and as a prepared a tea for her she spilled out her heart.
And if I ever thought I had it bad her story had no words. So much sorrow with out tools I thought I would have by now.
I’ll be happy when you get from the ‘helping us’ to the ‘helping them’. Or I could say when we all get from the helping us to the helping them. That is what I signed up for.

The Hindu religion advices something on those lines; it states that if you are looking for a Guru to assist you in increasing enlightenment, first you should observe him days and nights to ensure he will be the one that could be worth in advancing your quest and, once you accept him, only do so with the understanding that your life, learnings, actions and progress lay on your shoulders, not on the ones of the Guru. It emphasizes that the responsibility of your life is yours and no one else’s.

Thus, anything that could assist me and many others in transcending is welcomed and very much appreciated Marty.

Despite I ditched most of my Eastern philosophy books post-scn, The Prophet (Siddartha) I was the one I could not part with and still have today.

As a student of Graduating from Scientology, I am happy to report-I am able to actually look and listen again! Now, I realize this may sound simple, but it is profound, as I’d stopped being the curious being I’ve always been!!!

It’s amazing what we’ve forgotten!

Consequently, I am once again meditating. And it is an enthralling to simply be in the moment. I can once again, as I did pre-scn, quite my mind-and just look & listen. It’s a state difficult to articulate. The experience is without any expectation or preconceived notions, I simply am in and enjoy the moment. It seems to me to transcend the physical/material word, and suffice it to say, it is freeing beyond words….!

That is what I have been trying to tell you and even you picked at the resource based economy ideas. I think now you probably would not do so much. They are big on thinking for one self and seeing the source of the problems.

I walked my own path to think for myself and it took me close to 10 or more years to get there. IT took untold hours of reading and learning about the reasons for the resource based economy. IT took years of pain and I did hit the bottom when I was tossed from the cult.

I get it now and it is clear to me. I glad I never trained to be an auditor because I missed the super super heavy dose brainwashing then. I had enough as it was. Why I recovered and many have not.

Barb
“I glad I never trained to be an auditor because I missed the super super heavy dose brainwashing then.”
Mark
The more I audit, the greater my ability to evaluate knowledge for myself. It’s a choice
My viewpoint.
Mark

From the OP: “A system of thought purporting to be the ‘science of certainty’, that overtly asserts the goal and product of boiling all of creation down to simplistic blacks and whites…”

I would be interested to know the reference for the above statement. The reference I know of regarding certainty is the following from *The Creation of Human Ability*. It describes certainty as based on one’s own observation – and says that it’s a gradient scale, “not an absolute” (as in black and white):

“Certainty, then, is clarity of observation. Of course above this, vitally so, is
certainty in creation. Here is the artist, here is the master, here is the very great spirit.

“As one advances he discovers that what he first perceived as a certainty can be considerably improved. Thus we have certainty as a gradient scale. It is not an absolute, but it is defined as the certainty that one perceives or the certainty that one creates what one perceives or the certainty that there is perception. Sanity and perception, certainty and perception, knowledge and observation are then all of a kind, and amongst them we have sanity.

“What will Scientology do? It has already been observed by many who are not that doubtful thing, the ‘qualified observer’, that people who have travelled a road toward certainty improve in the many ways people consider it desirable to improve.

“The road into uncertainty is the road toward psychosomatic illness, doubts, anxieties, fears, worries and vanishing awareness. As awareness is decreased, so does certainty decrease and the end of this road is a nothingness quite opposite from the nothingness which can create. It is a nothingness which is a total effect.

“Simplicity, it would be suspected, would be the keynote of any process, any
communications system, which would deliver into a person’s hands the command of his own beingness.”

“The road into uncertainty is the road toward psychosomatic illness, doubts, anxieties, fears, worries and vanishing awareness. As awareness is decreased, so does certainty decrease and the end of this road is a nothingness quite opposite from the nothingness which can create. It is a nothingness which is a total effect.”

“the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)”

I didn’t think it was an unfair question to ask where in the materials the “goal and product” is what you wrote – or, if you prefer, to ask what specifically was stated as a goal and product which “boiled all creation down to blacks and whites,” especially since you wrote that this is “overtly” asserted.

I do realize the blog post is an introduction to a book, and I’m sure that in the book you’ll be elaborating on the sentence I quoted. But since you made the introduction as a blog post, I thought it was a fair question for the discussion thread.

Your persistent assertions of being so ‘sure’ of things is living, continuing proof of the proposition. Again, your obsessive reference hunger is a continuing demonstration of the oil that keeps the scientology squirrel cage wheel churning.

There has to be a balance between certainty and dilettante. Confidence of one’s own knowledge and open mindedness. Even the decision to look with no previous filters or fixed opinions IS A DECISION.

The ability to be ‘mindful’ as described in the Tao, and the ability to choose and go with it, are both valuable and necessary abilities. You need not lose your strength of character in order to accept what is in front of you. They are not exclusive.

Well thank you, Marildi.
I have noticed that you have a very large amount of data at your immediate disposal. You seem to be able to dig up the right thing at the right time so often. For that I am grateful.

Brian, Alonzo, Pip and a few others are very good at recalling applicable data from eastern and mid-eastern schools. We all don’t always agree, but the interchange has assisted me more than any of you know.

Observation; The terms mindful looking, confront, submitting, allowing, emptying and mine, relaxing, etc. etc. are not exactly the same thing, but they all are related and branches of the same tree. The more I learn and observe, the more they come together. The words melt as the principles become more apparent.
Thank you all,
ARCL, Mark

Yes I have my own meditation practice. But I am not promoting it. All I am promoting is meditation. There are numerous techniques. But all good techniques accomplish the same thing: the stilling of the occilations of thought so as to see directly without a mind, without the reference of the past.

To me, the best meditation technique is that one which is practiced daily with dedication and enthusiasm.

Nothing in this world or any other compares to what opens up within ourselves. The joy can be overwhelming: causless and self existent.

In that state questions are readily answered effortlessly. We can see the whole cosmos as composed of light. A radiant light that rests in our hearts.

No more are the answers found in the mind. Though they can still be. The answers, the knowledge and wisdom come gushing out. I know that sounds kinda poetic and new agey, but it is true.

We are truth, we are love, we are the soul, we are wisdom, we are beauty, we are infinite, we are immortal.

All we have to do is improve our knowing.

Our own sincere and authentic search will magnetize to us the path best suited for us. My practice is mine. Found after many years of searching. Now I am home.

Everyone must find there own way. When the student is ready, the teacher will arrive. That is a saying from the eastern masters. I include Buddhism in there as well. We are all brothers and sisters on the path.

I heard an interesting radio interview with a man named Cameron Day. His parents were Buddhists and he grew up practicing Buddhism. I know he still meditates and teaches people how, but I’m not sure if he still calls himself a Buddhist.

One of the interesting things he had to say was that (paraphrased) the ego is not all bad and that we do need to use our minds and understandings of the physical universe in our every day lives. His ideas are pretty far out but keep an open mind 😉 Here’s the description of the interview:

“In part 2 of this series, Sienna continues her talk with Cameron Day who dives deep into the invisible forces informing governments, society and our personal capacity to manifest our true selves. Cameron offers real tools for ascension, and de-bunks the current myths of Ascended Masters, Arch[on] Angels and the False Gods that hold most of humanity hostage. He helps shed inter-dimensional interference making it possible to reclaim our sovereignty. A great show for those who wish to dis-engage from the subtleties of false salvation we are more easily seduced by in difficult times.”

Mirildi I agree, one of the downsides in the eastern approach is an incorrect attitude towards the ego. To me its not about having one or not, its about a negative ego, a selfish one, and a positive ego, one that includes the happiness of others in one’s motive.

As long as we are in existence we have an ego. I have seen people on the eastern path, with poor self images anyway, use the no ego doctrine to do some self disempowerment.

“I have seen people on the eastern path, with poor self images anyway, use the no ego doctrine to do some self disempowerment.”

Right, Brian – and that’s basically one of the points Cameron Day makes in the above video, as well as the other thing you said about a “negative ego” being the problem. However, Cameron went into it even further, and for me clarified this whole subject of the ego better than anyone else has done. At about 14:40 is where that part of the interview starts, and goes for about 10 minutes or so.

Loosely quoting him, he starts off by saying that the thing to do is to MINIMIZE the ego – not kill it, not get rid of it – just put it in ITS PLACE. He said that the ego’s proper role is to be a little navigation system, navigating physical reality. (That concept was always behind the issue I had with the idea of “no ego”!) He said it helps you defend what he calls your “sovereign state.” Being “egoless” one can be easily manipulated.

His basic point is that the ego shouldn’t be running the show but is there as a SERVICE. It shouldn’t be streaming a never-ending flow of thoughts through your mind – you should be able to think into the deeper parts of yourself, from other levels of your being, at will. That can only happen when the ego is properly minimized and sitting quietly until it can be appropriately utilized. He also gives some practical examples.

In other parts of the interview he talks about about meditation as a means of quieting the ego, and there are free “lessons” on his website to learn how to meditate. He has also devised a system of “self-clearing,” similar to auditing in purpose, from what I’ve gathered, and this is also free on his website except for the one-on-one “sessions” he delivers for a fee. But he says it can all be done on one’s own, at no cost.

The part of the interview about the ego is sort of summed up by him saying that the problem with the ego comes about when it ends up doing all the thinking and the person becomes fixated in the trappings of physical reality that relate to possessions and status in the eyes of others – and then the ego becomes a status-oriented out-of-control monster.

BUT he says it’s important not to vilify the ego because it’s a useful tool IF we are able to identify the distortions and go beyond them. The ego needs to be a reflection of one’s true self, not that of a distorted society such as ours. Pretty cool, eh?

Brian, thanks for this. It made me remember a thing that I believe Pasteur said (I could have that wrong): “Fortune favors the prepared mind.” One must do one’s part in preparation, and meditation or sorting things out as Marty is doing is “skillful effort.” So are forms of therapy that require examining one’s actions and taking responsibility for them. If the unprepared mind simply sits and waits to be instructed by a charismatic or forceful teacher, it is quite likely that its owner will get trapped in something that he has no skills to get out of.

For me there are two basic types of awareness. The type 1 I can explain rather easily. It is based on information and data. If I know the sales tech myself then a salesman cannot sell me something I do not want. Or if I know the tax laws (or hire one that knows) then I can save tax. I can raise my awareness by reading and studying, asking those that know or go to a course that teaches those skills. Type 2 is not so easy to attain. And basically I do not know how to increase that type of awareness. With the age of 10 I woke up. Before that time I had not been very much aware of myself. But why I did wake up, what I did to wake up, is in the dark. Year for year after that I could somehow increase my awareness. As a sample: the commanding officer sat on his desk and I had been in my office. He had the idea to sent me to ethics. I picked that up right at the instance of his intention and therefore could do some action to avoid being sent to ethics.
This type 2 of awareness cannot be increased by reading a book.
I only know how to decrease that type of awareness. For example chemicals like alcohol. Even sleeping decreased that type. After I woke up it took me usually 1 to 3 hours to get back to the awareness level I am used to in the evening.
So type one could be labelled intellectual awareness and type 2 spiritual awareness.
I increase my intellectual awareness as much as I can. Especially to survive in this complex world. With all its laws, regulations and have to knows. But my real intention here on earth is to increase my spiritual awareness. Maybe there would have been better ways or schools as Scientology to increase that type 2, but at least it could. The big but: it could. Nowadays it does not. I cannot say since when Scientology lost its ability to increase the spiritual awareness.
If someone can tell me what school on earth can increase spiritual awareness then I will give it a try.

“The master leads; by emptying peoples’ minds”. This is not a new datum for me, in fact, I crossed swords with “The School of Economic Science” for challenging this very datum. They tell a story about a person who goes to have tea with a “wise old man (Nan-in a Japanese master).The old man fills his cup and then keeps on pouring until the tea is flowing over the rim. When the person enquiries why the old man is still pouring he replies “Just like the cup your mind is already full, if you wish to gain wisdom you must empty your mind”. http://www.genevievegerard.com/articles/the-parable-of-the-cup-of-tea

Well my Evangelical Christian hackles went up. You see Jesus was not interested that your cup was full to overflowing he just said start pouring TRUTH into your cup and what will flow over the edge will be the lies.

In Scientology it is the same principle. Let the P.C. talk and the truth will go in and the lies will flow out, that is what the Tone arm is measuring. The only difference is, Scientology is working with RELATIVE TRUTH so it will set the P.C. relatively free. Jesus is working with ABSOLUTE TRUTH so guess what that does for the person?

This Power vs Force has some sound things to say, particularly I liked the last two sentences you quote. Life is definitely the teacher, and we should make the most of it. Hence the “good book” says “Praise God in all circumstances”. Thanks Marty.

Truth cannot be simplified, if we mean truth with a capital ‘T’, TRUTH IS. Relative truth can be simplified; Absolute truth can only be surrendered to.

It is important to differentiate between THE truth and A truth, Scientology deals in truth but does not specify which is which.

The School of Economic Science is dubbed a cult for the same reason Scientology attracts that label. To move from Scientology to any other of these so called cults is not to “move a little higher” but to move sideways. Once you “know the truth” all these so called cults will shun you.

It is all a matter of whether you choose to stay in your integrity or sell out to something less.

“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

Thanks for that, I have a high regard for the Buddha. It reminds me of the statement, I think generally accepted in Scientology, “All truth is relative –absolute truth is unobtainable.”

Of course the Buddha did not recognise GOD as such and reckoned desire as the cause of suffering whereas Jesus said the cause of suffering is SIN and the root of sin is the belief in separation from our creator. So for the Buddha it was about overcoming desire and for the followers of Jesus it is RECONCILIATION, and that’s the path I choose.

The God of Buddha, as I have now come to see, is not some person. The God of Buddha is mindfulness. It is seeing things as they are without assuming anything.

I think that Christ had that wonderful ability to be mindful. Christ was a teacher like Buddha was.

SIN is simply that which one believes to be sin. One can easily be controlled through that belief. Scientology has mastered that art of controlling people by making them believe continually in their sin.

Thank you for such a thought provoking response to my post. I entirely agree with you “The God of Buddha is mindfulness”. However that is mindfulness with a small ‘m’. Yes Christ had/has a wonderful ability but that is to be Mindful with a capital ‘M’. Jesus Christ was a teacher like Buddha was but that is the Jesus bit, the Christ bit is something quite different.

There is a massive misunderstanding in Christianity over the word SIN. I can safely say CHRISTIANITY IS AN INPLANT, and has no relationship to the teachings of Jesus the Christ. I will explain it in Scientology terms. Before one can harm another they must DISASSOCIATE, known in the tech. as an ARC break. Once a person has disassociated they can commit a non-survival act. The disassociation is THE SIN, the resulting overt acts (plural as a result of the overt motivator sequence) are SINS. So sins are the result of SIN (disassociation).

Going back to what you wrote “Sin is simply that which one believes to be sin”. What you are actually saying is disassociation is only disassociation because we believe in disassociation. Well I suppose in one way that is true, but the belief in disassociation is so deep just believing we are one does not work. You see YOU ARE THETA EXPRESSING AS A THETAN. To believe you are a thetan period means you are disassociated with THETA, the source of all. Without the revelation that GOD IS INFINITE PERSON the root of SIN cannot be actualised.

There is a curve in this because the dictionary defines PERSON as a “human being” but as you will know if you have any reality on the “whole track” not all thetans are human beings, so perhaps the definition of a person should be rewritten as A THETAN and the THETA can rightly be defined as INFINITE PERSON.

Also…let’s be clear…”God” is NOT a buddhist thing. Buddhists don’t have a deity. The Dalai Lama has been quoted as saying that he doesn’t bring it up much, because it upsets people, but those who practice Buddhism in its best-understood sense are atheists. Mindfulness could hardly be god unless the individual mind was god (and I doubt that many Christians would say that it is), and in any case, god is not something that everyone can understand, or that is necessarily penetrable to all people. As Pascal said, “If there is a God, why did he create me unable to believe?” Belief and faith can’t be forced, and unfortunately it is the essential component of religious life, at least as I understand it. I am afraid that I have to agree with Pascal. I am happy that others have the experience of God or whatever, but I can only think that a genuinely loving deity would not have created a lot of us unable to believe. That is a dirty trick on a par with allowing children to be born with cerebral palsy or allowing huge numbers of a population to die in agony of the plague. It makes sense in terms of natural law, but not in terms of a loving God…

I am afraid to say it appears that your statement “God is NOT a Buddhist thing” is not backed up by a search on Google under “Do Buddhists believe in God”. Actually the mindfulness referred to in Buddhism is the same DIVINE MIND that Mary Baker Eddy is referring to in Christian Science, where I attend church.

Christianity is not about believing, that is a misconception, it is about KNOWING and that knowing is THE MIND OF GOD which happens to be identical to the Buddhist idea of mindfulness.

I am really happy that you have this Knowing. I’m not being sarcastic. I’m afraid the Knowing has evaded and continues to evade me…and not for lack of searching on my part. By the way, the Mormons KNOW too. When they give their testimonies they don’t say “I believe”…they say “I KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT (that Joseph Smith is God’s True Prophet, that the LDS Church is the only true church on earth, etc.)” Unless you are already a Mormon, you might find it interesting to have a Battle of Knowings with one of them, because it may be that what you Know and what a Mormon Knows are not compatible. In fact, if you are not a Mormon, they are most certainly not compatible on many fundamental issues.

I personally don’t know. That is one of the things I’m pretty sure about…although I don’t know it for certain…not-knowing is the state I feel comfortable with. It is, if you will, a spiritual space that feels sacred to me.

As for Buddhist atheism, you can indeed find many arguments to the contrary on Google as well as arguments, most notably the Dalai Lama’s, supporting my point. Buddhism has been around for so long that its branches and devices are many-fold. The Buddhist practitioners I know and have read engage as atheists or agnostics, the idea being that since it can’t be known, the pursuit of absolute truth is a waste of time. My feeling is that deities are found where people want to find them. Buddhists are just as subject to this as are any other humans who would like someone “out there” to take care of the things they are crushed or frightened by. But I stand by my claim that Buddhist teachings, in and of themselves, do not posit a deity. By this I mean the Four Noble Truths, which are the core of the whole thing.

There is a Brahma Vihara…one of the four “Great Mental Abodes”…translated as “sympathetic joy.” That is absolute, unconditional joy in the good fortune and happiness of others…and of oneself. Your joy in Knowing is my joy in hearing about it. And having said that, I will bow out of the discussion and retreat to my own practice. Namaste!

Reading your post left me feeling sad. One of the things I found most difficult when I was at St Hill was “being dismissed” by another human being, however adroitly it was done, it always left me with a sense of loss.

I used to go to a Buddhist centre close to where I lived to take tea with the monks of an afternoon. One time while speaking to the Abbot one of the Novice monks asked me why I quoted from the Christian scriptures in a Buddhist monastery. The Abbot reprimanded him saying “what Pip speaks is welcome here because he speaks from his heart”. I left that meeting validated.

Just for the record I both believe in God and don’t believe in God. If someone were to ask me if God exists I would have to say NO because GOD IS EXISTENCE. I have never met anyone who would disagree that existence EXISTS, so when I say NAMASTE I am acknowledging in you the fact that EXISTENCE EXISTS and that YOU ARE IT.

Oh dear, Pip…please don’t think I was rejecting you. I just think that going around about topics where there may be a fundamental difference of agreement is not a skillful use of time and energy. I have gone to a number of Buddhist retreats where participants were Christian brothers, and a couple of nuns and a monk. In the end the practitioners at the retreat had some major differences, but this did not cancel the joy of combining energies in a unity that had the same qualities…kindness and the desire to alleviate suffering. The practice of contemplation, whatever its object, is an honorable one and worthy of anyone’s time.

I’m not rejecting you and I think your compassionate effort to engage with people on this is loving and commendable. I’m sorry also if I sounded short. I can’t think of anything more to bring to the dialog, but I enjoy seeing your posts and am in no way stopping myself from taking them in with respect. By the way, you have a wonderful face (if it is yours!)

Really, my only problem is with your use of the word “know.” As I said earlier, I find myself happily in a place of non-knowing, and my experience has never shown me that there was any way to know that there is a god, for instance.
I think we agree on everything important, including your nice face.

Betsy you do say the nicest things. I am reading a book at the present call “The Mystery Experience” by Timothy Freke. He talks about the basic paradox, the fact that we don’t know and we also know.

The main thrust of his book is the Mystery and the Story, and how it is not one or the other but both. The Mystery will always be beyond our knowingness, but something about the Story can be known.

I just thought it’s a bit like the definition of a THETAN. We don’t know what it is but we know what it isn’t or to use EXISTENCE we don’t know what it is but we can know much about EXISTING because that is what we are all doing.

Pip, thanks so much for the book recommendation…I am going directly to amazon to order it. (As if I needed more books. My tower of books “to be read” is teetering on the brink of falling over and squashing the cat.) But I thank you for your post, and your interest, and if you think it is a good thing to read on the subject I believe you. Tra then!

I would hate to think I was responsible for your cat getting squashed, is it possible you could start a second pile? I will be interested to hear what you make of this guy Tim Freke, there are quite a lot of Youtubes featuring him. The Mystery is the missing factor in Scientology.

Well, the book is on order. When I get it I will most certainly read it right away and let you know.
Your post about Mystery made me think of something…over the years I have met many people who have said that the Story of the Grand Inquisitor in “The Brothers Karamazov” made a huge, even radical, permanent change in their lives. About a month ago I re-read it for the first time in years and…wow. It is a sort of essay, told as a story, on the nature of the need for faith, the part mystery plays in our lives, and why those things can’t be ignored or wished away. I’m sure you’ve read it, but it’s worth many re-reads. It’s not something to agree or disagree with…just a sort of parable. It’s a short chapter (Book 5, Chapter 5). The idea is that Christ re-appears on earth during the Inquisition and the Grand Inquisitor, knowing full well who he is, has him imprisoned, to be executed the next day. That night the Inquisitor comes and talks to him about the needs of man…that is, the needs as determined by the Church (which in the context of the Bros. K means Catholic or Orthodox), as opposed to what Christ offered…freedom. The Grand I. says that the things man really needs, above all things, even above freedom, are Mystery, Miracle and Authority. It’s an amazing story with an amazing end, and has no real conclusions…
Considering that Scientology claims that it offers The Bridge to Total Freedom it is doubly worth a look by those of us here.
And thanks for the suggestion about my pile of books…I actually hadn’t thought of making it into two piles. The cat is saved a fatal squashing by your thoughtful analysis of the problem!

Hi Marty, I know you have been recommending this book SIDDHARTHA by Hermann Hesse. Other friends have recommended it to me too. I finally got around to listening to an audiobook version of it. It is simply fascinating. I thought I shall put a link to it on your blog.

“Siddhartha also reminds us that when in doubt or despair it is rejuvenating to turn to and fully enjoy the wonderment of the simple present; the Zen transcendence of doing what one is doing while doing it.”

Exactly what I got from the TRs in May 74. Not what I got in ’84.

Glad I have enough left of this LT to enjoy this very interesting lesson. 🙂

“A system of thought purporting to be the ‘science of certainty’, that overtly asserts the goal and product of boiling all of creation down to simplistic blacks and whites, can be seen in the light of the wisdom from the Tao (and even scientology’s know-to-mystery scale) to potentially be the conveyor of a sort of sickness. “

Embedded somewhere deep inside and amongst the millions of words written by Hubbard, waits the realization, for the unobservant, that Reality was somehow copyrighted by him.

The carefully implanted implication that Reality could be cornered by anyone, should be an indication to anyone concerned, that this “science of certainty” would inevitably end up as a catastrophe.

Marty,
one of the things that I have always found annoying, while on staff, was how there was a great amount of knowledge available to one but one hardly ever was capable of avaiing oneself of it.
Even if one did go to study 2,5 hours each and every day.
Obviously, one doesn’t have to beat the dead horse of altered tech or, if one wants to be specific, of prevented tech by ineffective training on it six ways to Sunday and to kingdom come — we’ve all talked about it to a point where it is now accepted fact.
On the Freewinds, we had all those OT Hatting courses. I supervised them for a while. They were actually great but they did not teach you all they could. Route to Infinity was one of the most famous. It had some incredibly OT data about how to make one’s postulate stick, how to overcome barriers and how to become more cause over your life.
The checksheets were a bit of a joke.
I do not disagree that a study of all the basic lectures and books might be a great thing to do. I disagree that one would do such study with the “cup already full” of: “Well, this stuff is mostly how he used to do it then. Nowadays, the Bridge is a lot more streamlined with new tech etc, etc.! Now, with the OT levels, LRH has loads of other incredible data that surpasses this.” — EPIC FAIL!!!!
The truth is that a great number of people on staff think they know scientology but they do not, even if they have “studied” it.
Scientology, for me, is a key to understanding data. Since there are a lot of different bodies of data kicking around, a key is necessary to be able to decode the information. This is what I have retained from 20 years of scientology. I can study and discuss with people about certain subjects because my understanding of these has been opened by using the key of scientology.
This is what this subject, in its finality, is. Nothing more nothing less. To believe that scientology has all the answers to life is the biggest mistake people make (and the fact that the church promotes this doesn’t help either). Still, they make it because they do not understand what scientology is: it is a key. Even though, it does offer some answers.
Yes, its body of knowledge covers a great many things, either spiritual, mental or physical. Still, it is all done so that people may reach an understanding of the basics of life, the universe and spirits so that they may understand other works from other enlightened people — or from unenlightened ones, so as to be able to discern the truth from the lies.
Funny enough, I came to realize this about scientology when I read a text on Osiric and Isic magick. Yes, one could say: “Why the hell would anyone want to study about that?” The truth is that they have a lot of answers about the physical and spiritual universe. They even have data that belongs on the OT band, which I am not going to relate here in detail because there may be people who might object, still.
At first, the texts about magick appeared to be utter gobbledygook until I read the sentences carefully and analyzed them, comparing them to what I knew from scientology.
And there it started to make sense! Things like exeriorization, OT phenomena like psychokinesis and telepathy; there was even a rather complete description of demon circuits and their behavior and how one should interact with them so as to “exorcize” them (basically, running them out); also, there was a great deal of data on viewpoints and how to change the physical world by changing postulates.
All the stuff I thought I would learn only in scientology. I know of really very few people who admitted to being able to actually being able to operate like this, in scientology. Even some of the people higher up the Bridge sometimes seemed rather indisposed talking about this.
I learned about a specific subject in Osiric magic, which is why I even spent a single minute studying the subject: Empathy. Not the mainstream concept of empathy as “compassion” but the real, down-to-earth, ability to perceive emotions off of people and the environment.
I rehabilitated this ability on my RPF with FPRD (yeah, even the phony DM FPRD worked wonders, at times). Today, I am very good at it — sometimes uncannily good!
Scientology also mentions this ability and I was quite interested in researching all that Hubbard had said about it. He spoke quite a lot of it in his earlier lectures but, of course, there was nothing that taught me how to control it.
Basic bottom line, here, is: if it were not for they key scientology gave me, today I would not have been able to gather the understanding I have (from Osiric magick) on somehting that is very much part of me: being an Empath. Thanks to my studies, I have learned to be able to control it much better than when I “studied” it in scientology.
Thus, to rejoin the train of thought begun by you on your post, I totally agree that no one will ever gain any smidge of wisdom or ability unless they undertake a path of learning with humility and due reverence — not because one should like to be effect of the matter one is studying but because emptying one’s minds of preconceived ideas will enable one to assimilate the new material — and that is an important piece of the key scientology gives.

Thank you for your comment. It was nice to read. Isn’t “making your postulats stick”not the same as “realizing your plans”? Alsoo “being more cause over life” make me think of “being in control of your own life”

The empathy thing is intresting. Maybe you are talking about “reading people”?

Cat Daddy,
Once I cleared the definition of power on the American Heritage Dictionary, Third International Edition. It defined ‘power’ as “the ability to make something happen; the ability to create something to a point where it is complete.”
I will always remember that defintion.
It is intrinsic to the subject of postulates because one does have to do something to make one’s postulates stick. However, there is also the matter of how high on the tone scale one finds himself.
Ideally, at Serenity of Beingness one is above the need to postulate.
At Postulates one virtually need to think about something and it happens. Still, this does not invalidate the truth of the definition of power. All the tone scale is, is a method to categorize energy patterns, emotions being the manifestations of energy needed to interface with the MEST universe. The higher wavelength of the energy pattern, the less action in the physical universe is needed to make your postulate stick.
This is why at the level of Action on the tone scale, one is seen to produce products much faster than at the level of boredom.
You can get postulates to stick at boredom, too! It just takes a helluva long time! Imagine how long it takes to get something done in a society that is in the fear/apathy band like most of the people on Earth today!
Also, because the laws of Though, Emotion and Effort are closely related to ARC, the higher the ARC, the higher you go up the tone scale and your postulates manifest better and quicker.
So, to say that making one’s postulates stick is simply “realizing your plans” is great but is like I was saying on my post: “How do you do it? What is the Tech behind it?”
Scientology 8-8008 has the theory behind it. I believe the scientology tech that LRH had developed in the 50’s was Creative processing. That, in the end was found to make the Bank more solid — at least this is what LRH said. Apparently people needed undercutting.
However, I wonder if something could be developed that could circumvent Theory 67 altogether. Meditate on this I must.

Hmm, yes and no on the “reading people thing”.
It is a lot more precise.
LRH describes it as throwing an emotion off into space, like a radar beam, and it will ricochet with any energy pattern that it finds. Then it bounces back and you determine the type of pattern by its characteristic (flow, dispersion/implosion or ridge) and wavelength.
Osiric magick talks about sending a feeling out as a probe and when it hits a particular pattern of energy then you filter it with your own perceptions.
Basically they are saying pretty much the same thing.
Personally, I cannot determine the precise measurements of the wavelength without instrumentation. Still, by its energy characteristic and general mass I can detect how low or high it may be.
This could result in “reading people” but it can be applied to locations, objects or even chain of events. Whatever has energy ridges stuck in space (and even time), it can be sensed and dealt with.
I found that I get a better reading when I use a middle-to-high emotion like Strong Interest as probe.

Flavp: “Scientology, for me, is a key to understanding data. Since there are a lot of different bodies of data kicking around, a key is necessary to be able to decode the information. This is what I have retained from 20 years of scientology. I can study and discuss with people about certain subjects because my understanding of these has been opened by using the key of scientology.”

Wow. Awesome post, Flavp. I could quote virtually all of it as worth repeating, but the above is really choice. That’s what Ron intended Scientology to be – a key. Not a fixed set of datums but a way of “knowing how to know.”

On the point of discussing other subjects with people, just yesterday in another forum I was in an exchange with a guy who has studied a lot of Eastern knowledge and he was explaining how levitation works! He first described the dwindling spiral of thetans/souls, down to the point of becoming clustered entities – which he explained contain mass (note: it is also according to LRH that even thetans are “in a very, very small amount of mass”), and in that mass is the consideration (postulate) that maintains its beingness or existence. He said that when the considerations in the mass of entities are polarized, as during meditation, those considerations are cancelled out and with it the beingness of the mass – which contains the properties that would make a body relatively “weightless” – and thus would come the ability to levitate.

The above is what I understood, and I hope I’ve done justice to his explanation. The point I was actually getting at is that he filled in the blanks to a statement LRH made in *Scientology 8-8008* – i.e. that there is “a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.” And the ability to gain knowledge outside of Scientology, which enhances it, is a basic benefit of Scientology itself, as you pointed out:

“Basic bottom line, here, is: if it were not for the key scientology gave me, today I would not have been able to gather the understanding I have (from Osiric magick) on something that is very much part of me”

A further explanation was added today about levitation. The student of Eastern knowledge commented that the entities are “counter-postulating each other about their locations” and “when finding their position (Static) they just stop to create mass.” I think I understood that in relation to the definition of a “ridge”:

RIDGE, 1. it’s a standing apparent motionlessness of some kind or other, an apparent solidity, an apparent no-outflow—no-inflow, that’s a ridge. Flows have direction. Ridges have location. (5904C08) 2. a ridge is caused by two energy flows coinciding and causing an enturbulence of energy, which, on examination, is found to take on a characteristic which in energy flows is very like matter, having its particles in chaotic mixture. (Scn 8-80, p. 43) 3. a ridge is formed from two flows and these two flows hitting will pile things up. (PDC 18) 4. a ridge is essentially suspended energy in space. it comes about by flows, dispersals or ridges impinging against one another with a sufficient solidity to cause an enduring state of energy. (Scn 8-8008, p. 18) 5 . a solid body of energy caused by various flows and dispersals which has a duration longer than the duration of flow. Any piece of matter could be considered to be a ridge in its last stage. Ridges, however, exist in suspension around a person and are the foundation upon which facsimiles are built. (Scn 8-8008, p. 49) 6 . facsimiles, or pictures, of motion. (Scn 8-80, p. 45) 7 . areas of dense waves. (Scn 8-8008, p. 78) 8 . electronic densities. (Scn Jour 6-G)

Marildi,
I am replying to both your posts, which I find very interesting, indeed!
I agree with the person who explained the above to you.
Let me firstly explain that the subject of entities burdening thetans is a bit of a touchy one amongst scientologists. Those who are still affiliated to the Church strongly believe it is a subject not to be discussed openly. I disagree.
I mainly disagree because people, who understand only what “scientology” has to say about this, miss the point, in my honest opinion.
An Entity, in Osiric magick and other branches of magic, too, is seen as a semi-sentient construct that has been sort of programmed to act in a certain way. It does not respond analytically because it cannot — it’s not designed that way.
Look up the definition of ‘Valence” and it is described right there.
However, entities (even those known in dianetics as Demon Circuits) must be treated as actual people if they are to respond to any sort of treatment, whether one is trying to ‘exorcize’ them or ‘running them out’.
This means that they are capable of a sort of stimulus-response consideration. Thus they have mass because they aren’t true static.
Furthermore, the thetan these are attached to is not-ising them or alterising them, adding more mass to them.
But, if one, through focused direction of attention, whether by auditing or meditation, even, can contact the entity, he can as-is enough of the mass to make the entity disappear. This causes a condition of being “static” (i.e.: having no mass, no wavelength, etc.)
It is true that we may have a lot of entities causing postulate-counter postulate situations in our body. These are the famous ridges LRH talked about in his early lectures. He mentioned that the body is fundamentally a ridge. Therefore, if one makes the ridge less material, it can defy the laws of the physical universe. Remember that these laws are only valid if one agrees with them.
In the PDC tapes, he goes over the fact that a thetan, being a static can locate things is space wherever he wishes them to be. High on the tone scale a thetan may only think about levitating one’s body and it happens — to hell with mechanics!
However, for us, mere mortals (Hehe! Just kidding!), we need to go through the mechanics of what that person has explained to you.
By the way, Gravity is energy and has a wavelength. Like all wavelengths, it can be modified by thought.

I agree, this is an interesting subject! There’s data in HOM about entities, and also in the 1980 HCOB “The Nature of a Being,” so I suppose no one should be all that concerned about it being “confidential” data.

I’ve seen discussions where some believe, based on their own perception, that entities are beings/thetans, but others perceive them as their own creation – like a circuit or valence. The latter would align with what LRH wrote in DMSMH:

“A Dianetic demon is a parasitic circuit. It has an action in the mind which approximates another entity than self. And it is derived entirely from words contained in engrams.”

I get from that LRH thought it was a mechanical, not “live,” entity. But he seemed to have changed his mind when NOTs was developed.

You wrote: “An Entity, in Osiric magick and other branches of magic, too, is seen as a semi-sentient construct that has been sort of programmed to act in a certain way. It does not respond analytically because it cannot — it’s not designed that way.”

That would seem to fit what LRH wrote in HOM – that entities are “synthetic.” And if that’s the case, there’s still the question of who or what “synthesized” them – the thetan who has them, or someone else?

But the real question I have is how can one know an actual being as such? Elizabeth (who posts here) said that there’s some sort of a “sparkle” that identifies an actual being. My idea about it is that you should be able to have a true 2-way comm cycle with them, i.e. an analytical response, as you worded it.

If you read David St. Lawrence’s articles about entities and his experience auditing many people, you get the idea that they do respond like living beings.

Incidentally, I think you should check into David St. Lawrence’s Independent Spiritual Technology forum, where, to quote the site: “…many different spiritual phenomena and counseling services can be discussed in great detail. The idea here is to have beneficial and inspirational sharing of information. Current topics of discussion include encounters with spiritual beings, Spiritual Rescue Technology, Knowledgism, Scientology, Self Clearing…”

Btw, a topic of discussion started recently is one on the traits of an empath, which you mentioned in your first post above. Actually, that forum has evolved into just about every sphere of knowledge you can think of – from anything along spiritual lines to conspiracy theories to quantum physics. Your comment about gravity, as well as your other comments, would be welcomed – mutually beneficial, I’m sure. But this forum is unique also, so hang out here too!

Okay, great. Don’t let it overwhelm you at first because of there being so many topics. Just read through the categories on the Home page and see what interests you. I’ll look forward to your contributions!

(This is a response to the idea of “Just survive” that came up a few posts back.) Just a thought…but I don’t think the urge to survive IS black-and-white…not always, anyway. Example: a parent who throws himself in traffic to push his child out of the way of death. People who go into extremely dangerous conditions to try to save other people whom they may not even know. Altruism, which is a characteristic I think most of us who have read about him can agree was NOT highly developed in L. Ron Hubbard (I realize this is arguable for many who still believe in him, but the evidence surrounding himself and his own children doesn’t seem to support that he was altruistic), is interesting, and much discussed by evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins. It appears that almost all characteristics have an evolutionary survival meaning, but not necessarily for the individual…and not even necessarily for that individual’s gene pool.
When I was at college in the 60s and knew everything there was to know and was majoring in philosophy, I strutted home one Christmas and was sounding off about the great truths I was learning. In the course of my discourse I stated that it was an inarguable fact that NO ONE would rather die than live. My quiet (and later, I found out, clinically depressed, as well as in chronic arthritic pain) father jumped up, yelled “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” and ran out of the room. Only much much later when his disorder had manifested in me did I understand that he literally woke up every morning disappointed that he was still alive.
Survival does not seem to have been an imperative for Quentin Hubbard. Maybe his father didn’t pay attention to that part.

Betsy — I’m sorry to hear of the clinical depression and pain of your father — as well as hearing that his disorder has/had manifested in you …

I can really relate: my father — a few years before his suicide — had jumped up when I was telling him that “we lived before and will live again” telling me that it was absolutely NOT TRUE. For him — he when he died (which I didn’t realize he was planning) he wanted it to be a DONE DEAL No memory no nothing.

I just thought he was an idiot. Little did I know that he was once again facing his own demons and considering suicide. Something he accomplished in 1980.

I left the SO a few months after his death because the pain FOR ME was too great to bear — and after all — I was “saving a planet” and did nothing to help/save my dad. How messed up is that?

The urge the commit suicide is a pain is that crippling. Scientology did NOT help me never have that crippling pain again — much to my utter surprise — but it did give me a few tools that were useful when I did have that crippling pain again — (20 some years after getting into scientology) …

But I think buddhism gave me the greatest tools.

And yet — that crippling pain returns when I am very quiet and lonely. When I am lonely and the weather SUCKS … etc (no sun reduces serotonin levels which are needed for NOT getting depressed – why prozac works — NOT PROMPTING IT — have never taken it but just saying — LSD works too but I’m a bit too old to start tripping again 🙂

Marty’s blog has been a ray of sunshine as have the commenters.

I’m very grateful … on this YET AGAIN GREY COLD and dismal New England day with temperature of 8 degrees, snow all over …

Quentin wanted to fly airplanes. He was gay. He wanted his own life. He tried and failed to blow several times. He was a sweet kind young man who didn’t seem to have a great deal of force AT ALL within him.

He went on Flag Tours to promote the Flag Land Base. Public really liked him. I liked him. Those in Mexico who came to see him speak liked him.

And his sister Diana ADORED him. As I’m sure Suzette and Arthur did too.

It wasn’t necessarily scientology he wanted to get away from OR his father necessarily — he just wanted his OWN life …

Karen knew him better than I did of course because she was on the ship with him … and was a Class XII with him.

Those who probably knew him best were at St. Hill with him was he was young.

I wish people like you and Karen who knew Quentin would tell us more about him. I can’t put my finger on it, but there is something important about what was done to him and what he ended up doing. It is terribly sad, but I understand the impulse. Sometimes you find yourself in pain that you are simply unequipped to live with.

It wasn’t necessarily scientology he wanted to get away from OR his father necessarily — he just wanted his OWN life …

Why are you lying to yourself ? Hubbard was a Tyrant and Quentin didn’t have a change. L Ron Hubbard WAS the sociopath next door to his son Quentin Marta Sout would have a field daty with Hubbards case, who was suppressed to the Max by a father who forcefully layed down the law.

Quentin understood wit well

Scientology or death, His father left him NO other options (KSW)

‘We’d rather have you dead than incapable.’”

Read Dianetics about 1.1 or Science of Survival

Consider 5000 Sea Org send out to find him.

Having to go do days, weeks months of everyday to do Scientology studies whenuit is mental torture to Quentin and soul eating.

“When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe – never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach… If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half minded about being Scientologists… When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare… The proper instruction attitude is, ‘We’d rather have you dead than incapable.’”

Being a gay man who was raised in the Sea Org, I can sort of imagine what may have gone through his head.
All was further exacerbated by the fact that he was Hubbard’s son.
I myself have attempted suicide in the Sea Org. The depths of despair one reaches when one is continuously unmocked because of that group’s rampant homophobia, lead one down a very dark and ugly path.
I would have liked to know Quentin. I see a little bit of myself in him, which is understandable.
What stopped me in the end was the fact that my mother loved me for what I was, even when she and I had no idea who or what I was.
I hope that, wherever he may be right now, he may have found the peace of mind to live his own life exactly as he is.
Meantime, we as humanity, as scientologist, whether ex or still practicing, with what we know about the human soul, we need to make this world into a better place where people are not discriminated, they are not unmocked for being different or non-conforming to some age-old moral agreement — a place where equality shines and people are respected and valued for what they are spiritually.
Despite what scientology preaches, homosexuality is anything but understood in that body of knowledge.
I have given it a lot of thought and I have received a lot of auditing to “deal with” that. In the end, there is nothing to handle in regards to homosexuality.
I have found more answers in wicca and magick about homosexuality than in scientology. It is a spiritual thing in many ways. The main lie is that this universe must be comprised only of dualities. That reasoning is faulty like two-valued logic. Draw your own conclusions, people!

Oh…I’m so so sad that you have had this needless pain. The homosexual rejection must be one of the most awful features of CO$…and, like so much of it, it simply reflects an emotional turmoil that LRH had that he decided to turn into a cosmic rule of conduct.
“The untroubled mind,
Never seeking to understand
What is right and what is wrong
Watches and understands.”
— The Dhammapada
That duality business has been a nightmare for the world since the dawn of history.

Oh, what a story…I’m so, so sorry. I think people who have lived with severe pain, either physical or emotional (and the emotional kind can be every bit as awful) come to know that there are worse things than death. Suicide is always a terrible thing for survivors, but in some cases I think people are driven there because they just can’t take it anymore. I can easily imagine states in which I would want to die. Getting older has a lot to do with changing one’s view of these things…because at some point death has the last word, and, as I’m sure you know from buddhist studies, that is the reason we should make friends with it. Understood in that way, death is the exact right thing. As Steve Jobs said when his cancer was progressing, “Death is the best invention that ever was.” It makes life much more precious when death is looked at with courage and the willingness to accept it and know in every minute that it will come at some point. At least that has been my experience…